Gonzales argues necessity of warrantless wiretapping

Attorney general says court warrants hinder pursuit of terrorists

January 25, 2006|By Dan Eggen, The Washington Post.

WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales argued Tuesday that the requirements of a secret intelligence court are too cumbersome for rapid pursuit of suspected terrorists, repeating the administration's position that warrantless wiretapping authorized by President Bush does not violate the Constitution or federal law.

Gonzales' speech at Georgetown University's law school was part of the Bush administration's effort to defend a program that allows the National Security Agency to monitor calls to and from the United States without warrants. He used the appearance to echo statements made Monday by Bush, who referred to the effort as a "terrorist surveillance program" and characterized it as a crucial tool against violent militants.

"It is an early warning system with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States," Gonzales said. "It is imperative for national security reasons that we can detect reliably, immediately and without delay whenever communications associated with Al Qaeda enter or leave the United States."

Gonzales' appearance was part of a three-day White House campaign to defend the NSA's warrantless monitoring of telephone calls and e-mails. The program was disclosed last month and has been the focus of sharp criticism from many lawmakers, national security experts and civil liberties advocates. Last week, White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove provided a plan for Republicans to take control of the issue by painting Democrats as weak on national security.

The appearance by the attorney general was punctuated by a silent protest from more than a dozen students who stood and turned their backs to Gonzales, who continued to speak without acknowledging them and did not take questions afterward. Five of the students wore black pillowcases over their heads--an apparent reference to the treatment of U.S. detainees overseas--and held a banner roughly paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Many experts on intelligence and national security law from both parties have said that the president overstepped his authority in ordering the warrantless NSA eavesdropping shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 specifically prohibits such domestic monitoring without a warrant.

Analyses by the Congressional Research Service also have raised questions about the legal justifications for the spying and limited notification of Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to hold hearings on the issue next month.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday that Gonzales and other administration officials were engaging in "revisionist history" by portraying a congressional resolution authorizing military force against Al Qaeda as justification for the NSA program. A group of relatives of Sept. 11 victims, the September 11th Advocates, also issued a news release alleging that the "Bush administration has continually used 9/11 as an excuse to break the laws of our great nation."

But Gonzales, drawing heavily on a 42-page Justice Department "white paper" issued last week, said the eavesdropping follows a long tradition of wartime surveillance and is conducted under the president's authority as commander in chief. Although FISA includes emergency provisions allowing short-term wiretapping without a warrant, Gonzales said the law would overly burden the government with paperwork and other requirements when it needs to respond quickly.

David Cole, a Georgetown law professor and frequent administration critic who appeared on a panel after the speech, said Bush clearly violated FISA by authorizing warrantless domestic spying. A second panelist also criticized the administration, while two others defended its position.

"He is free to go and ask Congress to change the law," Cole said. "He is not free, as he did here, to order executive branch officials to violate that law."